Safe But Sound pt.5
Hatred for the brethren is a nasty fact of Church life.
That may shock you, but it is easily demonstrated. Consider the way in which we lovers of Israel write off brothers and sisters who are “Replacementists”, as though everything they believe about the Christian faith is somewhat suspect because of that single doctrinal position. “They don’t agree with my doctrine, and I insist that my doctrine is utterly biblical, so I will, at best, ignore them or even write them off as second class believers!”
“He doesn’t believe in the Pre-Trib Rapture!” can easily consign a ministry to the scrap heap! But then again, “He does believe in the Pre-Trib Rapture!” is a sentence of death as far as others are concerned! Maybe “sentence of death” is a bit strong but “dismissed from serious consideration” is not too strong! It is endemic in many Christian assemblies of all types and preachers walk on eggshells these days.
A few years ago, I helped to run a disciple training programme. We used a particular textbook by Derek Prince, entitled, “Foundations for Christian Living”: an excellent primer based on the foundational statements of Hebrews 6:1-3. I needed a fresh supply of books and rang my usual supplier. “Oh dear”, said he, “We’ve stopped stocking Derek Prince’s books because he is ‘into heavy shepherding!’” Because there was a suspicion in one area of his teaching, Derek Prince’s entire ministry was dismissed! I tried to point out that there had been a time when Mr Prince was very “near the edge” when it came to authoritarian leadership, but he had long since distanced himself from it. It made no difference. As far as this bookseller was concerned, Derek Prince had become bad news. I was deeply saddened by this exchange. Several questions might have been asked:
■ Is it Derek Prince’s current position?
■ Is it foundational doctrine in any case?
■ Has it been checked out with Derek Prince personally?
The answers to all three questions in this case would have been “NO!”
Many of us could recount similar conversations.
When Christians Disagree
I was genuinely pleased when I heard that the next Foundations conference was to address the issue, “When Christians disagree – God’s disunited Kingdom”! The theme is clearly an inspired choice. Our disunity grieves the Holy Spirit at a level impossible for us to comprehend. I’m not sure if the Holy Spirit can weep, but He can certainly grieve over the state of the Body of Christ. “See how these Christians hate one another!” might easily be a statement based on the observation by the world in general. If we think that is acceptable as a demonstration the Fruit of the Spirit, we can think again. It is rather a demonstration that Satan is alive and well and wreaking havoc with our testimony through our behaviour.
A while ago I was speaking at a Church in the Midlands and happened to mention, in passing, that I was a firm believer in the keeping power of God, that born-again believers were safe for eternity, and this belief was soundly biblical. The reaction that greeted me at the end of the Service took me completely off guard. You would have thought I had told a “dirty joke” from the way a man attacked me. My comment had clearly blasted all my credibility as a Bible expositor right out of the window as far as that man was concerned. To say that he completely dismissed me as being a false prophet is not to overstate.
Was I right to be hurt? Or had I indeed become a false prophet because of my “Reformed” position? If so, church History is littered with far more dangerous false prophets and teachers than I had realised! We can write off the Reformers of the 16th Century straight away. We can dismiss preachers like George Whitefield and Charles Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and many others, who cherished and who cherish the revelation of our blessed assurance.
A line in the sand
The question is, how do I cope with you when I disagree with you so fundamentally? That may be a way into dealing with the problem: defining the word “fundamentally”.
Is there a line to be drawn in the sand between fundamental truths and doctrines that are not so fundamental? And what are they? I’m not talking about “biblical truth” and “non-biblical truth”, because those who espouse doctrines with which I profoundly disagree often appeal to Scripture as readily as I do! We are not dealing with matters concerning our Lord’s divinity or the Resurrection: those are credal matters and I would not suppose that many of my readers will have problems with them, although I cannot be certain, of course!
It goes without saying (I hope) that we would distance ourselves from folks who denied any of the basic doctrines of Christ, but I am trying to address a lurking menace that creates a certain level of glee when we can catch each other out even on non-essentials. I suppose we think it elevates us above the other chap and it’s juicy to be able to show him up and take him down a peg or two! It is simply pride at work.
Conflict within …
Let us take the matter of assurance. I believe myself that the “Reformed” position is the correct position. Our Sovereign God chose me as His child before the foundation of the world. But the mere declaration of that confident statement is sufficient not only to raise the hackles of some brethren, but to drive them to react strongly and in great offence. The problem is that we both feel completely sure about our doctrine, believing it thoroughly biblical, and we will not be budged.
| IMG_15_6_HILL |
We should never say that unity is always preferable to truth, because that would be to say we can play fast and loose with doctrine: that we can believe what we like, as long as we believe that it’s “in the Bible”! That is an appealing position to hold, but it can be deadly. Of course, truth does matter. It matters very much. The first Christians devoted themselves to the “Apostles’ Doctrine” (Acts 2:42) and we can safely assume it was the same doctrine. All the believers were together and had shared everything (Acts 2:44) and that included their doctrine. Truth unchanged, unchanging.
We must surely concede that seeking after truth and standing by it is the responsibility of all believers. But what happens when we face one another with different understandings that we simply cannot agree on?
In this current series of articles, I am addressing the thorny issue of assurance. Can a believer be utterly secure in his salvation or can that security be threatened through inconsistent behaviour or diminished faith? In a simple phrase, is it really true that once I am saved, I am always saved? Can I rest in that, or have I a false assurance based upon sentiment and not upon biblical truth?
Historical conflicts …
A short while ago, Lindy downloaded a remarkable document for me. It is a copy of John Wesley’s sermon that he preached in London on Sunday, November 18th, 1770. It was preached by Wesley on the occasion of the funeral of George Whitefield. Whitefield had died in September at Newburyport in Massachusetts and his Executors informed Wesley that his expressed wish was that Wesley preach at his funeral. The sermon is an extraordinary outpouring of love and unqualified respect for someone Wesley clearly valued as one of his dearest friends.
What makes it so remarkable is that Wesley and Whitefield were very much opposed over the matter of assurance and election. George Whitfield believed fervently in divine election and the “perseverance of the saints”. Wesley, on the other hand, took the opposite view! The two of them differed dramatically and vocally and never came to agreement on the matter. But they were ever and always devoted brothers in Christ with a passion for Jesus Christ, for the lost and for the gospel.
It is much to the credit both of Whitefield’s friends and of John Wesley that the differences between the two great preachers were not allowed to interfere with the invitation to him to preach the sermon, nor with his own affectionate and ungrudging recognition of the greatness and goodness of his departed brother and fellow labourer. Indeed, their differences of opinion had never been permitted to interrupt their mutual love and esteem, although their debating was frequently extremely frank and firm. They agreed to differ, and still to love one another.
To confirm that, Whitefield had arranged for a vault to be prepared beneath his London chapel in which he meant John and Charles Wesley to be interred alongside him. For various reasons that wish was never fulfilled, but it serves to show that doctrine must never be permitted to divide brothers and sisters who both love Jesus with all their hearts.
This is a fine balance. But we must make every effort to maintain it. It takes grace to love each other when we hold theological convictions that differ.
The apostle Paul had a sharp disagreement with Peter. Paul describes it in Galatians 2:11-21. It was no minor matter either. Peter was trying to cling on to his Judaism while protesting his freedom in Christ. This was duplicity. Paul would have none of it and the two clashed publicly.
Quite clearly Paul’s persuasive arguments won the day, but Peter’s attitude, having suffered a public correction, was not to retreat in sullenness and batten down the doctrinal hatches, but to accept the correction and move on. His attitude to Paul was not diminished and in his final piece of writing he gave Paul the highest accolade (2 Peter 3:15-16), even going so far as to describe his letters as “Scripture”. There is a largeness of spirit here displayed that we lesser mortals struggle with.
In warfare, soldiers are united in confronting the common enemy. In an efficient army, they do not engage in squabbling and shooting at one another. Such conduct would damage the strength and effectiveness of the whole Unit. Was Paul actually addressing this problem when writing to the Galatians? In 5:15, he writes, “If you keep on biting and devouring one another, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”
Strong stuff … but does it ring any bells?